Life is manifestly unfair. If Stanley can pull up his big boy pants and understand that important life lesson, he will be fine; he got a job offer at Google that normally requires a PhD, after all, right?
This is not the sword to fall on.
This is not the sword to fall on.
In other words: your claim of "unfairly advantages" is a moral one, and not at all objective.
Your logic seems to suggest that, instead, they should automatically deny entry to the top 9%, because they 'will be just fine'.
When a college basketball coach is selecting players from among the undergraduate population, should he reject the best few players, on the basis they will be fine anyway? If not, what makes basketball and computer science different?
A university's mandate is quite different.
But assuming thats the hook you want to hang your hat on, the guy in this post clearly had plenty of talent to beign with, and also many opportunities to develop it. Does he deserve all the opportunities? What entitles him? What entitles anyone to a scarce resource?